A book by Agatha Christie describes a man who is murdered. The police then ask the suspect if they are surprised. She says she is shocked, but not surprised.
The New York Times published a profile of Giselle, a young woman. Giselle, then 17, became pregnant with twins in 2020. A Texas judge blocked her attempts to have an abortion. Cecil, the father of the babies, eventually left her. Giselle and her children slept in the homes of friends and on their lawns in campers. The twins currently live with Rachel Borego and Michael Borego for a year. Giselle will make her decision at the end of this year about whether or not she would like to adopt her daughters from the Boregos.
It’s heartbreaking–truly, truly heartbreaking. It’s hard not to choke up when you read about the pain Giselle has endured and the sacrifices she made for her children. The Times is not about a young woman who overcomes adversity. It is evident from the subtitle and title:
She wasn’t ready for children: A judge wouldn’t let her have an abortion. Teenagers may require permission from a court to terminate their pregnancies, as America’s “parental involvement” laws are becoming more restrictive.
Here’s the end of the piece:
G texted me several weeks ago in the middle of the night to express concern: Either she could abdicate her parental rights like her father, or she could raise her kids without the stability and warmth her mother gave them. Both left her feeling abandoned and unloved. She wasn’t sure which was worse.
The Times position is clear. Giselle should not have been allowed to murder her daughters while still in the womb. She would have been better off. Her daughters would be probably better off too, frankly.
I am shocked but not surprised.
This is surprising because pro-choice polemicists rarely are so open. It’s not surprising, however. The Times follows the pro-choice argument until its logical end. Some women may be happier killing their children than others, but it doesn’t mean that all women should. Giselle’s decision to have her children killed was a right one. If that was the case, it would be a tragedy for her daughters.
This is not the case for most abortion supporters. Why? Because they don’t believe women should be forced to bear the “trauma” associated with giving birth and carrying a child, they support abortion. Giselle believed that having children would make her work at low-wage jobs to provide for her family. She would be unable to get an education or start a successful career.
That is precisely what happened. She shouldn’t regret having children. The Times doesn’t think Giselle would be happier if her daughters died.
Cognitive dissonance is when people find the Times article offensive but support abortion. They need to rethink the position. I do hope they do. I don’t hold my breath.
We are now entering a new stage in the abortion debate. The pro-choice camp will be less squeamish and more open-minded. They will stop pretending that babies they wish to abort suddenly became precious little bundles, simply because their mothers didn’t kill them. They’ll soon get used to the idea that they wish some children were dead.
It’s not enough. It’s only the beginning.
There is no expiration date for the pro-choice argument. Let’s say that you agree with the principle of abortion. It is sometimes better for mothers not to have their children. You will regret the fact that not all children can be born. This doesn’t matter if the child is one, a month, a year, ten, ten, twenty, fifty, eighty, or 80 years old.
According to the Times, Giselle would have been better off if the Texas judge allowed her to kill her children. She is most certainly grateful for their support. What if Giselle had wanted an abortion by her mother? Giselle’s life would be a tragedy. Her happiness is irrelevant. It’s the fifth step of a cruel and utilitarian formula. But that formula failed at the fourth step. Giselle shouldn’t have children, and she shouldn’t either.
It was always going this way.
Accepting the fact that some babies are simply happier dead will lead you to conclude that both children and grown-ups would be better off dead. If one human life can be taken away, then all human lives are disposable.
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
It is possible that this will never happen. As the abominable logic of abortionism continues, there is a possibility that Americans will be drawn into the pro-life camp. It is a good thing.
Yet, this article will still be useful. Because the Times profile lists names and places. It contains many photos, including Giselle, Cecil, the Boregos and the two little girls.
Eventually, these girls will be grown up. They will have smartphones and laptops. As we all do, they will search for our names. They will discover that the New York Times published an 8,000-word piece on why they should be killed in their mother’s womb. They will be able to see that millions of progressive Americans looked at their adorable little faces and wished they were dead. I hope they find this article and realize that they are valued and loved.
